Judgment :- 1. Petitioner challenges the award of maintenance to 2nd respondent minor girl by the court below, on remand. 2. 1st respondent claimed maintenance for 2nd respondent, alleging that she was petitioner's daughter born to her. Learned Magistrate found that 1st respondent was married to one Velayudhan, and that by reason of the presumption arising under S.112 of the Evidence Act paternity could not be attributed to petitioner. In revision, by order in Crl.R.P. 294/83, this court remitted the matter to the trial court to consider whether the marriage between 1st respondent and Velayudhan had been dissolved. On such consideration, court below found that the marriage was dissolved and that 2nd respondent was born of the illicit relationship between petitioner and 1st respondent. These findings are under challenge. 3. Court below found that petitioner and 1st respondent lived as man and wife, that the child (2nd respondent) was born of this union on 20-8-80. They later parted company. However, petitioner executed Ext.P2 agreement with 1st respondent admitting paternity of 2nd respondent and agreeing to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 15/-. PW2 is an attester, to Ext. P2. PW6 a resident of the locality, stated that marriage between Velayudhan and 1st respondent was dissolved sometime in 1973, according to his reckoning, in accordance with the custom prevalent in the community. He would also say that he officiated at the ceremony as an elder. PW7 Velayudhan, former husband of 1st respondent, also stated that the marriage was dissolved, long before the birth of the child.. The trial Magistrate, accepting the evidence of PWs. 6 and 7 as reliable, found that the marriage was dissolved long prior to the birth of the 2nd respondent, beyond the compass of S.112 of the Evidence Act. Access, presumed or factual was thus found against. The magistrate also found that the relationship of petitioner and 1st respondent, once neighbours, blossomed into much more leading to the birth of 2nd respondent, the love child of this relationship. 4. Shri M.P.M. Aslam, counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner was coerced into signing Ex.P2 and that he had no physical relationship with the first respondent. According to petitioner, he is a staunch moralist, whose resentment to illicit relationships was equally staunch. Annoyed by his puritan stance, some persons of poor moral fibre, connected false allegations. It is difficult to accede to this submission. According to petitioner, he is a staunch moralist, whose resentment to illicit relationships was equally staunch. Annoyed by his puritan stance, some persons of poor moral fibre, connected false allegations. It is difficult to accede to this submission. Those who sponsor moral values, hardly ever find themselves in situations akin to what petitioner found himself in. Besides, there is cogent evidence on the question of paternity. Regarding coercion, the court found against the petitioner, and rightly too. The findings are based on legal and acceptable evidence, and appreciation of evidence is unimpeachable. 5. Learned counsel then submitted that dissolution of marriage was not proved. If it is not proved, then S.112 of the Evidence Act would raise a presumption of paternity in Velayudhan, relieving the petitioner. The burden is on the party who pleads a custom to show that it exists and that it is certain, continuous, reasonable, ancient and not opposed to public policy. Degree of proof required to establish the prevalence of custom for purposes of S.125 Cr.P.C. is not as onerous as in other regions. The context and concept of the legislation, contemplates a degree of proof far less in rigour. 6. In Sumithra Devi v. Bhikan Choudhury (AIR 1985 SC 765), the Supreme Court indicated the degree of proof required for establishing a fact under S.125 Cr. P. C. Even in the absence of religious rites, a marriage according to customs could be found. On the same reasoning, the burden of proof required to prove dissolution of marriage for purposes of S.125 is not of that degree required in other regions. 7. Even in cases, where marriage subsists, paternity could be found outside marriage, when non access on the part of the husband, and access on the part of another is proved. As observed in Chilikuru v. Chilikuru (AIR 1954 SC 176), non access, can be proved like any other fact. In the Aylesford Peerage Case ((1886) 1.1 AC 1), paternity of the child born to lady Aylesford, even while the marriage with Lord Aylesford was subsisting, was found in Lord Blandsford, as it was proved that Lord Blandsford had access, while the husband did not have. The rule in Blithe v. Blithe (1966 A. C. (42)) is also to the same effect. 8. The rule in Blithe v. Blithe (1966 A. C. (42)) is also to the same effect. 8. In the instant case, it was not only found that the marriage was dissolved, but also that petitioner had access, while Velayudhan did not have. The finding of the court below is proper and is not vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. Petition fails and is dismissed.